MIDDLE HOUSING Parking Scam and Risks to Your Safety.
- Brian Gass
- Jul 22
- 5 min read
Updated: Sep 3
Let’s talk about parking—because no one at City Hall wants you to.
In addition to rebranding multifamily rentals as “Middle Housing” to make them sound more acceptable, Bellingham officials are now doubling down by eliminating parking requirements. That’s right: the city wants to let developers build dense rental housing with zero off-street parking, and they’re calling it a win for “affordable housing.”
It’s not.
According to the city’s own website(without a single real study to back the claim), each parking space costs $20,000 to build. So, the logic goes, if we eliminate parking requirements, housing will magically become cheaper.
Voila! Problem solved.
Except they offer no data to show how many units will actually be added, what the real savings are, or if any of that savings will even reach tenants. Just vague proclamations from the mayor and city staff. In fact, the only "study" that the city cites is not from a "non-partisan" group as they claim, but a PRO-PARKING ELIMINATION GROUP where the "results" are PROJECTIONS! of savings, not real. To make matters WORSE, the "savings" are for EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEXES not single family zoned neighborhoods!
If it feels like your being gaslit, that’s because you are.
Self-Serving Studies and Shell Games
I’ve seen these types of “studies” before. Th
ey’re like the old cigarette ads where doctors recommended menthols to pregnant women. They’re not real studies—they’re outcome-based fluff from trade groups that exist to tell the city exactly what it wants to hear.
If Bellingham commissioned a study, I bet it would read something like:
“According to the Association of Wolves, sheep should be allowed to roam free.”
And the data they do reference? It’s usually from apartment complexes with underground garages. Not the "plexes" they’re trying to cram into Bellingham’s existing single-family zoned neighborhoods.
Let me be crystal clear.
Removing parking requirements from so-called “middle housing” will be a disaster for neighborhoods.
Here’s why.
Three Big Reasons This Policy Fails
1. You won’t have a choice.
Don’t believe the city when they say, “Developers can decide whether to include parking.”
I’ve seen firsthand that this isn’t true.
One local developer building a home with an ADU had a two-car garage for the main home and tried to add a third spot for the ADU by widening the curb slightly. The city said no. The ADU tenant must park on the street—even though space existed on-site.
So when they say “choice,” they mean “no.”
2. They ignored safety.
What about the single parent walking from their car late at night?
What about your teenager getting dropped off blocks away because there’s nowhere to park?
And what about car break-ins?
Ask anyone who lives on a crowded street. There’s a world of difference between pulling into your driveway and walking five blocks to your car.
A $20,000 parking space is a one-time cost. But a sense of safety, convenience, and peace of mind?
That’s daily. And worth far more.
3. It makes neighborhoods more dangerous.
Anyone who’s driven through Columbia or Sunnyland knows the streets are already narrow.
I have a friend with a $70,000 truck who lives in Columbia—he’s had it hit twice while parked on the street. Once it was nearly totaled.
Now imagine duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes on every block, each with multiple tenants—and multiple cars—with no off-street parking.
It’s a recipe for chaos.
Here's a Real Solution: Cut the Fees
If the city really wants to make housing affordable, here’s a simple solution: cut the bloated fees.
Right now, every new unit—even a single ADU—is charged a $4,000 school impact fee. Yet enrollment in Bellingham schools has dropped 12% since 2020.
We also incur a $4,000 park impact fee, despite the number of parks and total acreage having outpaced population growth by 170% since 2000. And don’t forget the Greenways Levy. We’re already paying more—and getting less.
Between 2014 and 2024, the city issued 14% fewer permits but raised fees by 70%.
So when the mayor talks about “reducing uncertainty and delays” in permitting, maybe she should start with the city's own inefficiencies—not by forcing every resident to park on the street.
Let’s Be Honest
The city keeps repeating “affordable housing” like a magic spell, hoping we won’t notice what’s really going on.
But here’s the truth:
You won’t have a safe place to park your car.
Your friends and family won’t be able to visit.
Your neighborhood streets will become more dangerous for kids, pedestrians, and drivers.
And the savings? They won’t go to you. They’ll go to the city—and the developers.
Why?
Because the city doesn’t want to lose its fees. They want to shift the costs and risks onto you.
If cutting a $20,000 parking space supposedly makes housing cheaper, why doesn’t cutting $20,000 in fees do the same?
Ask the city that and watch how fast they change the subject.
It's not about "Affordable Housing"
They are sacrificing the neighborhoods for one thing and one thing only.
FEES!
If they cared about "affordable housing," they wouldn't charge 2,3,4,6 TIMES the fees on the same single-family zoned lot.
These are just the basic IMPACT and CONNECTION fees. Does not include building, stormwater, etc.
Final Thought
Thanks for reading this update from Real Issues. If this post resonates with you, please share it—especially with your neighbors in Bellingham, who are being told that parking-free fourplexes are the solution to our housing crisis.
Housing policy only works when it works for everyone. That includes you, your safety, your freedom to move, and your ability to live in a functional neighborhood.
Not just one that looks good on a planner’s spreadsheet.
Make sure to subscribe and hit the notification bell so you don’t miss the next update. Check out our Youtube Channel at @RealIssuesPodcast
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Isn’t parking expensive to build? Doesn’t removing it help lower costs?
Yes, parking can cost money to build—but the $20,000 figure the city cites is vague and misleading. It’s often based on underground parking in large apartment buildings, not small-scale housing like duplexes or ADUs in residential neighborhoods. Even if the number were accurate, that cost is spread over the life of the unit. Meanwhile, the city has made no effort to show how much savings would actually reach the tenant—or if those savings even exist at all.
Q: Doesn’t removing parking promote walkability and transit use?
Only in theory. In practice, 90% of Bellingham and Whatcom County residents own at least one car. Removing parking doesn’t eliminate the need for cars—it just shifts the burden onto streets and neighborhoods. People still need a place to park, and pretending otherwise ignores the daily realities of families, workers, and visitors.
Q: Why not just let developers decide how much parking to include?
That would make sense—but that’s not what’s happening. The city is actively removing the requirement for off-street parking and, in some cases, even denying developers the ability to provide it voluntarily. We've seen developers denied wider curb cuts or driveways, even when space was available. So “let the market decide” is a talking point, not actual policy.
Q: Doesn’t more housing mean less traffic, not more?
Only if the people living in the new units don’t own cars—which, again, is highly unlikely. Most plexes will house multiple adults, and most of those adults will own cars. Without off-street parking, every new unit adds more cars to already-congested streets. More density + no parking = more traffic and less safety.
Q: Isn’t this all worth it for more “affordable housing”?
That’s the bait-and-switch. The city hasn’t shown that these changes actually lead to affordable outcomes for renters or buyers. They toss out the phrase “affordable housing” like it’s a magic wand, but they offer no data, no proof, and no tenant protections. In reality, these changes benefit developers and the city’s fee revenue far more than everyday residents.
Comments